Page 1 of 5 [ Search found 47 matches ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
Archelon
Posted: Feb 11, 2010 20:47 

I've posted my ideas for a possible reboot of the franchise on a few other Resident Evil fansites, and I even made a blog post about it over on Capcom-Unity, so many of you may have already read my thoughts regarding it. For those who have not, however, and are interested, here is a link to my blog post. Be forewarned. It is quite lengthy.

http://www.capcom-unity.com/archelon/blog/2009/05/20/rebooting_resident_evil

Also, these ideas are based on the assumption that Capcom will continue with the basic gameplay mechanics and design as set forth by Resident Evil 4 rather than completely redesigning it from scratch or doing a complete 180 and returning to the pre-RE4 design.

For further reading, I also have somewhat of a companion piece regarding the general design philosophy of Resident Evil 5's dev team and how it affected this particular title's development, as well as where such a philosophy may lead from here and how it may affect future titles in the series.

http://www.capcom-unity.com/archelon/blog/2009/11/08/resident_evil__where_do_we_go_from_here

It's not nearly as long as the previous blog post.
Archelon
Posted: Mar 08, 2010 1:56 

May I ask exactly where all your information and 'facts' come from? You state they spent more on their marketing than on the game itself, can you prove this?

It was a joke. Calm down.

All I was saying was that Capcom spent an inordinate amount of time and money on the marketing campaign for this game. Was it more than what they spent on the actual game itself? Probably not, but my point still stands.

You also state that RE5 and it's new scenarios were not enough to compete with other current heavy hitters etc. Can you prove this? Because figures would say otherwise. AE was the number 1 selling game in Japan on release, Resident Evil 5 was the number one selling game at it's release, it's sold truckloads. It was in the top 10 on gamefaqs for more than half a year and still worms it's way back into the top 10 from time to time which means it's still in the top 20 a year later. It was in the top 10 most played online games on xbox live for 2009. Etc.

So again I ask where these claims of yours are coming from? If you can provide the evidence to prove these claims I'd appreciate it. Because as it is, outside of your OPINION that RE5 did not do well, it actually did in fact do extremely well and has competed with the other 'heavy hitters' quite well.

As I stated, Resident Evil 5 and Biohazard 5 were on the top 10 (even top 5) list of most played xbox live games of 2009. That's both the US and Jap versions making the list, not just one or the other. They also remain being one of the top played games on xbox live currently.

LiN and DE also both sold so well that Sven on Unity stated there is a high chance of future DLC content because interest and support was so high for the current DLC.

So in the future, it'd be nice if you didn't let your 'opinion' be presented as factual and try to make unfounded claims to try and pretend your opinion is widely accepted, thank you.

Hoo boy, where do I start?

First of all, I feel it is necessary to point out that you yourself claimed that just because a large number of people believe Final Fantasy VII is the greatest game of all time does not make it a fact. Similarly, just because Resident Evil 5 sold gangbusters does not mean that it held its own against other similar titles. Financially, yes, it obviously did, and in several cases, it far exceeded the sales of its competitors. However, financial success does not equal critical success.

I was not referring to sales. I was referring to the critical reception and the reception by the gaming community at large. I thought this was fairly obvious, but apparently not. In the future I will make sure to distinguish between financial success and critical success when I claim that a title is unsuccessful in appealing to a particular fanbase or the gaming community at large. As I said, I didn't think something like that needed to be delineated, but for your benefit, I will be sure to do so.

Now, moving on to your accusation that I have presented my opinions as fact, I believe the above explanation I have offered should serve as a sufficient rebuttal. However, to offer further clarity, it can be difficult to quantify a game's success from a critical standpoint, yes. Certainly more difficult than when viewing it from a strictly financial perspective. And even then, many will disagree for the simple fact that we are, in fact, dealing with individuals' opinions.

Resident Evil 5 received a relatively lukewarm response from gaming media when it was released. It only received a few of what could legitimately be considered "bad" reviews, but it didn't exactly light up the charts with overtly positive reviews, either. It certainly didn't receive the same glowing reviews its predecessor did, but then, few games have. The general consensus seems to be that it was a solid experience, but it wasn't anything spectacular, and the gaming community at large seems to agree with this.

If you go to any video game forum out there, and it's best to visit ones that are not dedicated to the Resident Evil series so as to limit the fanboy factor as much as possible, you will find that a vast majority of gamers consider Resident Evil 5 to be an inferior product to its competitors, and certainly when compared to Resident Evil 4. Does this make it fact? No, of course not. But as I said, it's difficult to establish "facts" when you're dealing with opinions. Even so, opinions drive this industry. Perhaps not as much as sales, but they do factor greatly into the equation when a new game is being developed, whether it is a new IP or a new entry in a storied franchise.

You would be hard pressed to find an individual who would argue that Resident Evil 5 is a better horror game than, say, Dead Space, just as few would argue that Resident Evil 5 is a better third person shooter than, say, Gears of War. Why is this? Well, for many, it's the simple fact that Resident Evil 5 does not commit itself to one genre over another. Dead Space is clearly a game entrenched within the survival horror genre. Gears of War, on the other hand, is a third person shooter to the fullest extent. Resident Evil 5 attempts to straddle these two genres, and as a result, many people were disappointed, because they either went in expecting a survival horror experience or a full blown third person shooter, and RE5 is quite clearly neither of these.

And this is precisely why it is necessary to remove the fanboy factor. While there are certainly exceptions, generally speaking when you have an individual who is not a fanboy/girl review a game, or at least offer their take, whether it be in an official or unofficial capacity, he/she will judge the game on its merits independent of any personal bias he/she may have for that particular series. There is nothing wrong with fans reviewing or sharing their thoughts about games from their favorite franchises. It just makes it more difficult to determine what is objective (or, at least, as objective as an opinion can be) and what is more subjective.

For example, fans of the Resident Evil series generally will not have a problem with the fact that you cannot move and shoot at the same time, because that is the way it has always been. This is pretty much a given. However, fans of third person shooters like Gears of War or Uncharted will take issue with this particular gameplay mechanic, because of how restrictive it feels compared to other shooters. Now, one could argue that Resident Evil 5 is not meant to be played like a traditional third person shooter, and in many cases, this person would be correct.

However, Capcom gives the illusion of playing a more traditional third person shooter with the addition of a cover system, more traditional third person dual analog controls, and even enemies who use guns. The game was even billed by several members of Capcom USA as a third person shooter more than a survival horror or action horror title. It certainly doesn't help that so many third person shooters have taken inspiration from Resident Evil 4's basic design template, so what was once unique to the Resident Evil series, if only for one game, isn't so unique anymore.

Now, let's look at it from the viewpoint of a fan of the survival horror genre. Resident Evil 5 is an installment in a series known for its survival horror trappings. The game is even marketed as being a survival horror title, and many members of the development team apparently still considered it very much a survival horror title. It certainly maintains some of the vestiges of its survival horror heritage with the aforementioned inability to move and shoot at the same time and the inventory management.

However, similar to a third person shooter, it is set in a decidedly un-survival horror setting, the characters are loaded for bear, and there are no puzzles to speak of. Given the choice, most survival horror fans would pick something like Dead Space over this. In fact, look at just about any article posted regarding Resident Evil 5 on any video game website, and inevitably in the comments would will find people comparing it to Dead Space or claiming Dead Space is a better horror game or something of that nature. For many, the Resident Evil series has been dethroned in one fell swoop by a young upstart.

Resident Evil 5 has also appeared on several "Most Disappointing Titles of 2009" lists, including from websites and publications that gave it a favorable review score. And as I'm sure you'll no doubt point out, that does not make it fact. Of course it doesn't. But no one was arguing it as fact. I certainly was not. Or do I need to start putting "IMO" after everything I type?
Archelon
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 17:19 

There were certainly complaints regarding Resident Evil 4's control scheme, and many to this day wish you could move and shoot at the same time, or, at the very least, strafe like you can in RE5. I think the difference, however, is that RE4 was the first of its kind. It didn't invent the over-the-shoulder aiming system (I believe it was actually Splinter Cell that pioneered that particular viewpoint), but it most certainly popularized it. Also, you also have to consider what came before RE4. Many gamers disliked the fixed camera angles and tank-style controls from the previous Resident Evils.

While the tank-style controls didn't change drastically with RE4 aside from being a bit smoother and faster in execution, the change in the camera view made a world of difference. I believe this is why so many people feel that RE4's controls were so different from previous RE's, even though they shared essentially the same set up, aiming aside. Another thing to consider is that while countless games have since used the over-the-shoulder aiming system, few, if any, have used it for the same kind of region-specific combat that RE4 and RE5 do. This, coupled with the melee system, is something that is still very much unique to RE4 and RE5.

Now, here's a key difference. Even with its increased action and tempo when compared to RE4, RE5 is still much slower paced than your typical third person shooter, and the aiming/melee system has a lot to do with that. One of the bigger complaints regarding the enemy AI in RE4 was that while, generally speaking, the enemies were faster and more intelligent than the previous games' zombies, they were still not as intelligent as they could have been. Despite sprinting across an area towards you, they would stop just a few feet away and then slowly approach you.

This was a game balancing mechanic that allowed players to be able to more precisely aim at a specific part of the enemy's body. It also helped to compensate for the fact that you could not move and shoot at the same time. It is very much the same with RE5. However, I believe the reason you hear more complaints about it in regards to RE5 is because, as I said, RE4 was very much the first of its kind, so people were generally more willing to overlook little gameplay quirks like these back then than they are now, especially when you consider how many games have been released since then that borrowed and, in many ways, improved upon the basic template laid forth by RE4.

Now, much like RE4 before it, RE5 is not meant to be played like a traditional third person shooter. However, certain concessions that were made by Capcom have led more people to believe that it should be than there might have been had Capcom not made said concessions. To appeal to as broad of an audience as possible, Capcom implemented a more traditional third person shooter-style control scheme, but you still cannot move and shoot at the same time. Essentially, this comes across as only going halfway. Many people do not understand why Capcom would not simply go all the way and let you move and shoot at the same time.

But herein lies the rub. The enemy AI is designed specifically with the player's inability to move and shoot at the same time in mind. This is why so many of the enemies' attacks are only in a straight line, for example, with no way for them to change direction or compensate for a player moving out of the way. It is much more difficult to dodge an enemy attack using the classic control scheme than it is the TPS-style scheme. With the TPS scheme, you can simply step to the side of an enemy attack, and they will miss you completely. In fact, many attacks that require a QTE to dodge can be bypassed entirely simply with a sidestep.

If Capcom had added the ability to move and shoot at the same time, but left RE5's core design as is, it would utterly break the game. Capcom would have to go back in and completely retool all of the enemies' AI, behavior, and attack patterns to compensate for this new ability. At such a late stage in development, this would obviously be an impossibility without further delaying the game by a substantial amount of time. Or, if you want to be cynical, you could say it had more to do with laziness on the developers' parts than anything, but obviously that's not something we can know one way or the other.

Now, Dead Space gets brought up a lot in these types of discussions, due in large part to its control scheme. As I've already explained, simply implementing such a control scheme into RE5 would not have solved the problem, but still many people believe that Dead Space demonstrated that a survival horror title need not be bogged down by certain, shall we say, "hallmarks" of the genre in order to be successful at scaring people. In this case, the inability to move and shoot at the same time. Personally, I think Dead Space would have actually worked better with RE5's control scheme, as most of the enemies in it share much the same behavior as RE5's, but that is neither here nor there.

But again, this is why RE5 is held to a much higher standard than RE4 seemingly is. One common counter-argument is that previous games in the series did little to change or improve upon their predecessors, but no one complained about that. Well, first of all, people did complain about that. A lot. But that is not the key point to be considered here.

Earlier games in the series were released within a year to two years time between each title. So it was a little more understandable, even forgivable, that the games were so remarkably similar with each subsequent release. Also, the first real competitor didn't appear until, what, 1999? 2000? However, blatant copycats and games inspired by RE4 appeared almost immediately, and now, just about every third person shooter and survival horror game takes at least one or two cues from RE4's basic design. Heck, even games in entirely different genres (RPGs, platformers, open world games, etc) take some inspiration from RE4.

This, ultimately, I believe is why people may have been disappointed with RE5, or seem to judge it more harshly than they did RE4, or even previous games in the series. RE5 was in development for four years. In that time, we've seen countless big name releases like Gears of War, Dead Space, Uncharted, etc, that share some similarities with RE4, but each found some way to adapt or improve upon its basic design. Many expected something similar with RE5. What they got was essentially RE4 in HD and with co-op. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Of course not.

However, for many, it felt like Capcom was playing catch up after having set the standard themselves back in 2005. Instead of setting a new standard, Capcom was seemingly settling for less, even resting on their laurels. I believe that, had RE5 been released within a year or two's time, perhaps even three years, people would be much more forgiving of its apparent "play it safe" mentality. But after waiting for four years, I think a lot of people expected more, especially after the resoundingly positive response that initial trailer back in 2007 received.

I believe, and I think many will agree with me, it showed a much more daring approach to the game than the final product. But again, this is just my opinion.

As an aside, I'm still interested to find out just how much of the originally planned mechanics (the light/shadow dynamic, the more aggressive and intelligent enemies, fully destructible environments, etc) were scrapped solely as a result of the implementation of co-op, and how many of them were scrapped because they simply didn't work. I certainly hope it's the latter and not the former, because I would have happily taken those over co-op.
Archelon
Posted: Jun 01, 2010 17:57 

FoxyAreku wrote:
also every SH game is great, though I don't know about homecoming or origins cause I haven't played or seen much of those.


Does not compute.
Archelon
 Post subject: Re: Heroes Mode Trailer
Posted: Dec 15, 2011 14:55 

I mentioned this over on THIA, but if you think about it, only four of the six possible classes are represented in both the heroes and villains.

This suggests to me that there are still two characters on both the heroes and villains sides that have yet to be revealed. Chris and maybe Barry (he seems the most likely candidate, as he was actually there during RE3) for the heroes, and definitely Wesker and someone else for the villains. Possibly Mikhail?

I would wager the sixth villain will be an original character, like Lone Wolf, because of all the characters who actually saw combat during the events of RE2 and RE3, there aren't many to choose from on the villains side. That seems to be what they're going for anyway, given the Lone Wolf character, and is why we didn't get someone like Annette or Irons.
Archelon
Posted: Mar 02, 2012 20:36 

It will apparently release in October in France, so I'd wager it'll be around that time for the rest of the world, too.

http://fr.ultimate-re.com/index.php?sub ... om=&ucat=&
Archelon
Posted: Mar 08, 2012 17:08 

News Bot wrote:
Sounds like Mercier to me, just putting on a more gruff voice.


Degeneration was Mercier putting on a more gruff voice.

This is someone else entirely.
Archelon
Posted: Mar 20, 2012 11:51 

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/122/1221156p1.html

4.0 from IGN
Archelon
Posted: Mar 23, 2012 16:09 

Has anyone else noticed this?

In the lab where you extract the Nemesis parasite from the T-103, there is a white board that says "Attn: RPD - Let's be safe out there." It's signed "Chief Irons."

On it, it lists the units that comprise the RPD, including STARS, but here's the kicker. They say STARS stands for "Special Tactics and Rescue Squad ."
Archelon
 Post subject: Spec Ops Missions Spoilers
Posted: Mar 27, 2012 14:52 

Credit to Ultimate-RE

I had to rely on a translator, so if some of the information is incorrect or misunderstood, I apologize in advance.

Utilizing audio files that were discovered on the Operation Raccoon City disc, Ultimate-RE has pieced together a rough outline of the DLC Spec Ops missions. I am not sure at this point if this includes all of the missions that will be released, or just the first one (or two). I will be enclosing the information in spoiler tags so that those who wish to go in fresh will be able to.

First things first, it appears the true mission of the Spec Ops is to retrieve William Birkin and escort him out of the city into government custody. However, they are advised by their CO to not reveal this information to anyone, so when they encounter Jill and she asks them what they're doing there, they tell her that their mission is to rescue survivors and collect evidence implicating Umbrella in the outbreak.

After meeting Jill and, presumably, fending off Nemesis, the team heads to City Hall, believing that it will offer clues and information regarding Umbrella's involvement. While there, they discover video footage of the USS, alerting the Spec Ops to the opposition. Whether the footage is of Wolfpack or the generic USS grunts you will likely be facing during the campaign is unknown. They also find plans that disclose the location of Umbrella's underground laboratory, and their CO orders them to infiltrate the lab via the sewers.

Somewhere along the way, possibly in the sewers, the Spec Ops run into Claire, and she asks them to help her find Sherry, who has gone missing. The CO says finding Sherry might ultimately aid the team in locating and extracting William, because they have not heard from him since before the outbreak. Once Sherry is located and reunited with Claire, another team of Spec Ops escort them outside of the city (I would wager specifically the train yard from the final USS mission).

The Spec Ops arrive at the underground laboratory but must ultimately destroy it (or a part of it) to contain a threat they encounter (possibly Birkin?). They are then contacted by their CO, informing them that all contact has been lost with the team that was escorting Claire and Sherry, and they need to head to their last known coordinates to protect them, as well as Leon, from the USS. This seems to be the final battle from the USS campaign, but this time you're protecting Leon, Claire, and Sherry from the USS and aren't given an option to save or kill them. Afterwards, the trio are taken into protective custody.

After this, there is one last mission for the Spec Ops. They are ordered to move to the Dead Factory (the P12-A factory from the USS campaign), and it is here where you will get to play through the battle between the Spec Ops and T-103s, the aftermath of which Jill witnesses at the end of RE3. You will be faced with several T-103s, and you will have to utilize the Paracelsus' Sword rail cannon to defeat all of them. One player will operate the cannon, while the other players will have to fend off the T-103s as well as operate the various levers and switches which power the cannon.

This is apparently where the mission ends.

Feel free to discuss, but you might want to use spoiler tags just to be safe.
Archelon
Posted: Mar 31, 2012 20:03 

Isn't "DLC Content" kind of redundant?
Archelon
Posted: Apr 13, 2012 20:56 

The Special Edition of RE5 in the US was pretty terrible.
Archelon
Posted: May 07, 2012 13:16 

BiohazardFrance has collected all of the various scans from across the net in one place:

http://www.biohazardfrance.net/index.ph ... s&id=91863
Archelon
Posted: May 30, 2012 18:34 

Wow, talk about a massive translation fuck-up.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that.

I think the English version fits her character better, personally. It doesn't really make sense to me that she wouldn't deny working for Wesker earlier and then turn around and say that she's basically a good guy (girl?) after all.

She's a spy, after all. She's supposed to be cagey.
Archelon
Posted: May 31, 2012 10:07 

News Bot wrote:
Also, there are hints that Ada put something inside the bear for Leon.


Yeah, like that will ever be touched on again.
Archelon
Posted: Jun 06, 2012 19:28 

I haven't read the whole thread, so if this has already been addressed, I apologize.

Chris is NOT wearing a ring. It's a medallion of some sort. Sorry 'shippers.
Archelon
Posted: Mar 31, 2012 20:04 

I guess I'm one of the few who had been following Dragon's Dogma since its announcement with great interest. I had planned on checking it out regardless, but the RE6 demo just sweetens the deal.
Archelon
Posted: May 20, 2012 17:35 

Maybe Capcom realized all the money they spent on marketing for RE5 could have been better used elsewhere.
Archelon
Posted: Jun 10, 2012 13:52 

A couple other things I forgot to mention. Sasaki states point blank in the interview with GamesTM that he played a lot of Dead Space and took copious notes while designing Resident Evil 6. However, the inspirations taken from Dead Space apparently had less to do with atmosphere and creature designs and more to do with the control scheme. Basically, he said that simply giving the characters more mobility and combat options wasn't enough. They had to create enemies and combat situations that took advantage of the new mechanics without overpowering the player. They wanted to still be able to create tension without placing artificial limitations on the player, such as the inability to move and shoot at the same time.

Another big inspiration was, surprisingly, The Walking Dead television show. He said he wants to bring that sense of dread and character drama to the Resident Evil series with this title, hence the apparent emphasis on "dramatic" horror as opposed to, say, "survival" horror or "action" horror, though both of those concepts will obviously still play a role.
Archelon
Posted: Jun 10, 2012 11:38 

I was at Barnes&Noble yesterday, and I noticed the latest issue of GamesTM had a rather sizable article regarding Resident Evil 6. There wasn't a whole lot of new information, as it was mostly covering what was shown and discussed at Captivate, but there were a couple nuggets I found interesting.

The story and script were apparently penned by a "noteworthy Hollywood screenwriter," though no name was given. Also, when asked about possible playable characters for Mercenaries outside of the game's main cast, Sasaki dodged the question, but he did say the three most requested characters for Mercenaries were HUNK, Barry Burton, and Alex Wesker. Just keep in mind that this is in NO WAY a confirmation that these three characters will be in RE6's Mercs.
Page 1 of 5 [ Search found 47 matches ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Jump to:  

Biohaze.com
Powered by phpBB © 2000-2013